On Saturday 03 February 2007 16:38, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > A large amount of the non-feedback we don't get is because it already works; > it already compiles and builds on most any platform you throw it at. > Perl 5 is so stable it's funny. > > We can not do that without breaking the current perl. > > This I feel is dangerous. > It's not just dangerous, it'd be suicide! > > My proposal to get this: > > We start with the current bleadperl. We remove some ugly > > things and add new ugly things. After a few months we call it perl7. > Personally, and I realise this marks me out as a radical non-conformist, I'd like to see a perl7, if only because perl6 seems such an unattainable exercise. I also believe that perl6 has seriously undermined perl's reputation in the greater programming world, even to the detriment of perl5. However, breaking perl5, for the sake of a quick hack, would be plain daft. By all means start a perl7, a perl8, a perl-10-and-a-half-weeks, etc., but don't touch perl5 with a barge-pole. Just my 4-penn'th. -- Richard Foley Ciao - shorter than aufwiedersehen http://www.rfi.net/ ps. Please resend any bounced or unanswered emails.